November 4, 2017

As we get ready for this year’s 2017 Cambridge municipal election, here are a few "Fun Facts":

The total number of registered voters for the Nov 2017 election is 66,354. Their median age is 37.9. Here’s how their ages (as of Election Day – Nov 7, 2017) are distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters – 2017

For the Nov 2015 election, there were 63,338 registered voters with identified birthdates. Their median age was 38.7. Here’s how their ages (as of Election Day – Nov 3, 2015) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters – 2015

Of these registered voters, 17,959 voted in the 2015 municipal election. Their median age was 56.0. Here’s how their ages were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters Who Voted in the 2015 Municipal Election

If you compare 2015 and 2017, you can see that most of the gains in registered voters are in the younger age ranges – especially the 24-29 range.

It will be interesting to see if these shifts will be reflected in the age distribution of those who vote in the Nov 2017 election.

The total voter turnout has dropped over the years but has remained relatively stable for the last several municipal elections.

This year (2015) is a municipal election year and the roster of candidates is now final. Here is where the campaign accounts stand for incumbents and challengers for Cambridge City Council. This information will be updated as the year progresses.

It will be interesting to see how the new individual contribution limit of $1000/year (up from $500/year) affects campaign receipts and expenditures.

You can also look up these periodic reports (and more) yourself at the OCPF website.

The information in the tables below was compiled in early December 2015. Some additional receipts, expenditures, returned donations, etc. have occurred since then. The tables may be updated at some point in the future to reflect these changes.

Note:Non-itemized receipts (through Oct 2015) are not included in the Cambridge receipts. Any candidate with a significant amount of non-itemized receipts will have a lower percentage of Cambridge receipts.

December 6, 2015

Who Voted in the 2015 Cambridge Municipal Election?

For the November 2015 Municipal Election, there were 63,338 registered voters with identified birthdates. Their median age was 38.7. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 3, 2015) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters – 2015

Of these registered voters, 17,885 voted in the 2015 municipal election. Their median age was 56.0. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 3, 2015) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters Who Voted in the 2015 Municipal Election

For the November 2014 State Election, there were 66,315 registered voters with identified birthdates. Their median age was 37.9. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 4, 2014) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters – 2014

Of these registered voters, 32,569 voted in the 2014 State Election. Their median age was 49.3. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 4, 2014) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters Who Voted in the 2014 State Election

For the November 2013 Municipal Election, there were 70,601 registered voters with identified birthdates. Their median age was 37.0. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 5, 2013) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters – 2013

Of these registered voters, 17,800 voted in the 2013 Municipal Election. Their median age was 56.4. Here’s how their ages as of Election Day (Nov 5, 2013) were distributed (in 3-year intervals):

Registered Voters Who Voted in the 2013 Municipal Election

Changes from 2013 to 2015:

The total number of voters in the 2013 and 2015 Cambridge Municipal Elections were comparable, but there were some noticeable differences by age. Here’s a table showing some of this information:

Note 1: On Tuesday night, Nov 3, the Election Commission announced the preliminary winners in the order of election.

Note 2: On Wednesday, Nov 4, hundreds of additional "auxiliary ballots" were scrutinized for voter intent and then included with the Tuesday ballots to determine the "Unofficial Results". This produced the same winners, though in the City Council race the order in which candidates were elected changed.

Note 3: On Friday, Nov 13, the Final Results were determined when a small number of overseas absentee ballots and provisional ballots were examined. This resulted in an additional 8 ballots for each of the City Council and School Committee races. The margins in both the City Council and School Committee elections were such that there was no realistic possibility that the candidates elected would change, though the order in which Craig Kelley (6th) and Leland Cheung (7th) were elected was reversed.

The election results from this past week are now known and the theories are flying about why some candidates fared well and why others will say farewell. Most of this pseudoanalysis is just for entertainment purposes, but there are some basic political truths that continue to be self-evident. Most of all, local elections continue to be won or lost not so much on big issues and big money but rather on old-fashioned hand-to-hand retail-level politics. In particular, in a PR election it’s important to secure your political base whether that’s based on the positions you take, the favors you perform, the neighborhood you come from, or what you look like. It also remains the case that voter turnout is what secures the margins that give victory to some candidates and defeat to others. While others exchange theories, I’m just sitting here waiting for information on how many people voted in each precinct and how that affected the #1 vote totals of particular candidates. Until then, I’ll just allow myself to be entertained by the punditry of others.

The City Council returns on Monday with an agenda long on congratulations and short on substance. The real business took place last week. Here are a few items that may be of interest:

The last 4 signatures on the petition were obviously done by the same person. Also, this proposal calls for a change to the existing zoning for a single address to permit a use that is inconsistent with the abutting district (at least in the sense that districts have already been established elsewhere for this proposed use). It may therefore be illegal spot zoning. More significantly, what exactly then was the purpose of the zoning change enacted on Dec 16, 2013 establishing zones where medical marijuana dispensaries may be located?

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to update condo conversion numbers from 2010. Councillor Cheung

Is my triple-decker the last one left in Cambridge that hasn’t been converted into overpriced condominiums? I’m thinking of digging a perimeter moat filled with alligators that feed on real estate agents.

This is really the only agenda item that seems remotely interesting. It’s a huge document (98 page PDF) that seems to promote all the right things, but you be the judge.

Communications & Reports from City Officers #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the City Council on Oct 30, 2015 pursuant to Policy Order #27 adopted on Oct 19, 2015.

I pride myself on being well informed on most matters that come before the Cambridge City Council. This item may be the most cryptic agenda item I’ve ever seen. Honestly, I haven’t got a clue what it means.

That’s all for now, folks. I’m still just waiting patiently for those ward/precinct turnout and vote distribution numbers. I’m also eager to analyze the ballot data after the Final Election Results are determined this coming Friday the Thirteenth. – Robert Winters